AND 


orker. 


ee eet Bee SS SS ES 


ay a a 1 
Price 5 Cents. 
Sold by F. A. SORGE, Box 101 Hoboken, N. J. 


NEW YORK, 1876. 


Printed by JOHN WEBER, 64 Chatham Street. 


a 
on 


teoit® ramibens 


~ 


PALMER 


Socialism has been attacked and incriminated at all times, 
but never with more animosity than recently. Socialists are 
reproached of every kind of wickedness: of the tendency to do 
away with property, marriage, family, to pollute every thing 
that is sacred; they have been even accused of arson and mur- 
der. And why not? If we look at the originators of those incrimi- 
nations, we are not the least astonished, for they have to defend 
privileges and monopolies, which in reality are in danger, if drawn 
to the broad daylight and handled by the Socialists; they act ac- 
cording to the old jesuitic stratagem: invent lies and pollute your 


. enemy every way you can; something will stick. But if we find 


those reproaches repeated and echoed even by workingmen, whose 


~~ interests are quite different, we must wonder indeed. 


Tf the workers, however, hate and attack Socialism, it is not 


~? a clear perception of the wickedness of the aims of Socialism, by 
\ which their judgement is guided, but a dim and vague idea, and 
<\it is well known that spectres are awful things in the dark, for 


people who believe in them. 


bx But everybody ought to know what he does, and if he hates 


| 


and persecttes other people for their purposes and pursuits, he 
must be convinced, that he is right in doing so. For, if we hate 


and persecute persons, whose purposes and pursuits are reaso- 
~ nable and right, we are wrong. 


~~! 


For this reason let us examine the reali aims of the Socialists. 


YI think, I know them pretty well, and I promise to tell the truth, 


oe 


_ and nothing but the truth about them, bearing in mind what the 


poet says: 
“ ‘“‘He who lies must have a flogging.” 


When you have read this little pamphlet to the end, you may per- 


od 


secute the Socialists with renewed hatred, if yon find, they are 
“bad; on the other hand, you will think favorably of them, if you 


«find good and right what they havein view. For I am convinced, 


“ 


that you, dear reader, whoever you are, have not a mind to love 
the bad and hate the good. 


% Foremost and aboveall, it seems to be certain, that the Socialists 


intend to divide all property. Everybody, who owns something, 
must give up what he owns; this whole mass has to be divided 


~ equally among all the people and each person may use his part, 


. 


Pad 
Pd 


just as he likes. After a while, when some have used up their al- 
loted part, and a new disproportion of property has arisen, a new 


«» divisicn will be made—and so on.— Especially the money and 


« the soil are to be divided.— That is, what some people say con- 


cerning Socialism. 


372078 


i 


Now, tell me honestly, reader, have you ever seen or heard 
of a man of sound mind, who really demanded such nonsense? 
No, you have not! Such a demand involves the highest degree of 
eraziness. Just reflect, dear reader, to whose lot, for instance, 
should a railroad fall? Who should have the rails, or a locomotive, 
or a car? And since everybody would have a right to demand an 
equal share, all these things would have to be broken and smashed 
up, and one would get a broken axletree, another the door of a 
railroad-car, or some bolts, or, perhaps, a part of a dunghill, Not 
even lunatics could recommend such a state of things. 


A division of money or soil might possibly be thought of, but 
money and soil form only a small part of the wealth of a country. 
The ready money forms even a very small part. And if the soil 
should be divided, all the new owners would be in need of houses, 
barns, stables, agricultural implements of all kind. Such a distri- 
bution of the soil is, therefore, utterly impossible, and the Socia- 
lists know well enough, that such a proceeding would benefit no- 
body. During the great French revolution in 1789 something 
similar has been tried; large estates were divided among poor . 
country-people, to make them happy. What is the result? The 
French peasantry, generally, are so poor, that millions of them 
live in dwellings with only a door and no window at all, or with 
only one small window at the side of the door. And small farmers 
are not much better of in any country, except, perhaps, in the 
vicinity of large cities: The small farmer must, as a rule, toil 
harder than any other person, to make a living, and a very scanty 
and poor one at that, in most cases. Farming, in our age, only 
pays well, if done on a large scale, if large tracts of land can be 
cultivated with the aid of machinery and the application of all 
modern improvements. And this knowledge and doctrine of the 
Socialists is strictly opposed to a division of the soil. On the con- 
trary, the Socialists are of the opinion, that there will be a time, 
when a number of small farmers will unite to cultivate their farms 
in common, and divide the products among thems:2lves, seeing, 
that farming on a small scale cannot compete with farming on a 
large scale, the same way, as manufacturing on a small scale can- 
not compete with manufacturing ona large scale. Therefore, 
what has been said about the intention of the Socialists with re- 
spect to dividing the soil, is an apparent falsehood. 


Concerning the division of money I must relate an anecdote, 
invented to ridicule people, who were represented to have such 
intentions. One day in 1848, as the story goes, Baron Rothschild 
took a walk on the Commons at Frankfort on the Main. Two la- 
borers met him and accosted him thus: ‘Baron, you are a rich 
man; we want to divide with you.” Baron Rothschild, not the 
least puzzled, took out his purse goodhumouredly and answered: 
‘Certainly ! We can do that business on the spot, The account is 
easily made. I own 40 millions of florins; there are 40 millions of 
Germans. Consequently each German has to receive one florin; 
here is your share;” and giving one florin to each one of the la- 


5 


borers, wko looked at their money quite confused, walked off 
smiling. 

This teaches that the division of money is but an idle inven- 
tion. 


And with a little brain and thoviatié, everybody must be easily 
come to the conclusion, that the great number of those, who con- 
fess to the principles of Socialism cannot possibly consist of block- 
heads or rather lunatics, which they would prove to be, if they 
demanded such nonsense. In Germany es. 000 voters voted the 
socialistic ticket — should they all be crazy? 


Therefore, there must be something else in Socialism. The 
number of Socialists in Germany is constantly growing. Even 
Prince Bismark confesses that. There must be something in it. 


Now, if we go to the meetings of the Socialists, if we read 
their papers and pamphlets, what do we find? 


They do not intend to introduce division of property; on the 
contrary, they are for abolishing its division. 


That sounds strange, but it is so. 


The Socialists are of the opinion, that division of property 
is flourishing i in our society at present, and further they are of the 
opinion, that this division 1s carried on in a very unjust manner, If 
you doubt, only think of our Belknaps, Goulds, Crooked- Whiskey- 
men etc., and say, whether those fellows did or did not under- 
stand to divide and to appropriate to themselves large sums of 
money. Think of those swindling Railrcad- and other Companies. 
How many honest mechanics, farmers, laborers, have been swind- 
led by them out of the little sums they had gathered by hard 
work and saving? 


The Socialists do not claim the honer of being the first to 
discover, that this kind of distribution is going on everywhere 
throughout the world, they have learned it. Men who belong to 
their adversaries, have taught them. John Stuart Mill, that cele- 
brated Englishman, who is opposed to Socialism, says in one of 
his writings: ‘‘Asit is now, the product of labor is distributed 
in almost an inverse ratio, those getting the largest parts, who 
never worked any; the next largest portions fall to those, whose 
work is, so to say, only nominal, and so forth; the recompensation 
for work shrinking in the ratio, as work becomes harder and 
more disagreeable, until at last the most defatigating and ex- 
hausting physical labor cannot count with certainty on gaining 
even the most necessary means for existence. 


This sounds really dreadful, but if you look around and con- 
sult your own experience, is it not so? Certainly, it is! 


There are people, who have a princely income, who plunge 
from one pleasure into another — and perhaps they have never 
in their life done the least useful thing; they need not work, they 
do not work themselves, but — they draw the proceeds of the 
work of other people and enjoy them. 


On the other hand, look at him, who ‘‘eats his bread in the 


6 


sweat of his brow,” look at the laborer who works for wages. If 
he is skillful, industrious and strong, and if he is lucky enough 
to find employment, he may even be able to save a little. But the 
large majority of laborers cannot even think of that, in spite of 
all hardships they undergo. When they have to stop work, they 
are as poor as when they began it. And many, many laborers, 

hardtoiling men, are not able to protect themselves and their fa- 

milies from exposure and hunger. You need not go far, reader, 

you will find them everywhere. Ragged, palefaced, despairing 
people will meet your vision, and on inquiring you will learn, 

that they were industrious, orderly workers, and that there are 
thousands, aye hundreds of thousands of people living in the same 
miserable condition, in the cities as well as in the country. 


Now look at the mechanics! A few of them may succeed; 
they may be able to reach a state, in which they are safe from sor- 
row and care for the necessaries of life. The greater number of 
mechanics, who have a little shop of their own and work on 
a small scale, have to battle with poverty and care. Thousands, 
hundreds of thousands of mechanies fail in this battle; they give 
up their small establishment and turn wages-laborers. One manu- 
facturer on a large scale deprives hundreds of small mechanics of 
their independent existence. As things stand to day, only those 
will succeed in the great struggle for life, in the universal com- 
petition, who command large means, a great amount of capital. 


In commerce it is the same :merchants with small meansrarely 
do a good business, many go bankrupt, merchants with large 
means grow richer and richer. It is similar with farmers through- 
out the civilized countries of Europe, though not so much in North- 
America, Owners of small farms just eke out a scanty living and 
have to work very hard; many gradually fall off: in general the 
peasantry get poorer. There is the usurer, who knows how to 
make profit of a poor crop. Very frequently we find, that small 
farms are bought by owners of large farms to be united with them. 
Only the latter understand and are able to farm wih profit. 


Thus we see, how the large class of those, who work hard and 
assiduously, do not make money, do not amass riches, on the con- 
trary, many of them must suffer from want and care. But now, 
who creates those riches, which fall to those, who never worked, 
or whose work hardly deserves the name of work? Who else, but 
that self same workingclass? 


For industry and work scarcely a living! Riches for those, 
who never or seldom did anything useful! Do you call that 
just? You cannot! 


In England it has been investigated and calculated by order 
of the government, how much of the total product of work of the 
English people falls to the lot of those, who really work, and how 
much to the lot of those, who do not work. What do you think 
was the result? The small number of those, who do not work (34) 
draw more than one half, (#) of that amount, leaving to the large 
workingclass only #, not even one half of that, what is pro- 


=~ 
{ 


duced by them. Now, if the government of our country or any 
other part of the world would order a similar calculation to be 
made, the result would prove the saime. 

Can you approve of such a state of things? I know, you can- 
not. No sensible man can approve of it. And now say what you 
may against Socialists — in this point they are right: This state 
of things cannot and must not continue. It is wrong, and there- 
fore it must be changed. Socialists do not object to acquisitions 
made by honest work, on the contrary, they try to secure the pro- 
duct of work to the worker himself, and to protect it from the 
clutches of those, who hitherto have been accustomed, not to 
work themselves, but onlv, to draw profit from the work of others, 
and who, in doing so, are not content witha small part, but try 
to take the lions share, as it is in the fable. 


But do the Socialists not go too far in their zeal? It would, cer- 
tainly, be well and just, if it could be accomplished, that those who 
toil and work, could be liberated from care and want, and those 
who have been idle so far, could be forced to work also. But are 
not the Socialists enemies of the property-holders, and is not 
everybody, who owns property, threatened to loose it by the Sccia- 
lists, should they come into power — so much so, that he would 
have to face penury and want? Ave they not Communists? 


These objections and reproaches have been made and are 
made. Let us not make light of them, but let us consider them 
quietly, in order to judge right and justly. 

Before we go on, we must explain two conceptions: 

I. What is Communism? 
Il. What is property? 

About Communism many les have been set atioat, especially 
by people, whose interest it was to do so, viz. by those money- 
making idlers, so that most people cannot, but connect with the 
word Communism the idea of rascality; communist and scoundrel 
of the worst kind appear to them to be synonymes. Therefore it 
is not an easy matter to speak of communism, without running 
risk to be condemned, before one commences. Many people, in 
such a case, will not hear, will not see, will not judge, — their 
verdict is formed.— All social predjudices are awakened and called 
forth by this expression. For that reason it is very difficult to 
come to a quiet understanding about it. But the reader, who has 
followed us so far, will follow us farther, not blindfolded, butusing _ 
good common sense. 


What is Communism? 


If we open our eyes and look around us, we find many bene- 
ficial and useful institutions, brought forth by many, or by the 
whole people, ix common. In one place associations are formed, 
for inst. to save and shelter shipwrecked persons; at another place 
the community erect a school, or the state, the commonwealth, 
builds a harbor or a canal. In ordinary life everybody cares for 
himself, but in such cases, as those just mentioned, people unite 


8 


for advancing a common purpose. Experience teaches, that, in 
doing so, they do admirably well; every one of them,who will re- 
flect a little, must confess, that his own welfare is greatly advaneed 
by such institutions of common usefulness. What would people be 
without common roads, common schools ete., that is such as are 
built and instituted at the cost of the community for common use? 
We would be in a terrible situation, if all at once the different 
Insurance-companies would cease to exist, whose object is, to 
transfer a calamity, by which a person might be struck heavily 
or perhaps be ruined, from his shoulders to the shoulders of 
many. If I chose, I could mention here a thousand other things, 
but the above named common institutions will be sufficient. Now, 
all these institutions are nothing but Communism. For Communism 
is nothing but the principle of common interests. In every day life 
everybody looks out for his own interest, even at the cost of bis 
fellow-men; here cold, ugly egoism is dominant. The large 
cottonmills have ruined thousands and thousands of weavers; — 
but who cares for hundreds of honest, industrious, happy people, 
who get ruined by one mill? Who cares, how many honest shoe- 
makers are deprived of a living by the large shoemanufacturers? 
What does the usurer care for the victims of his avarice? What 
do the speculating swindlers care for the fate of the shareholders, 
after their hardearned savings are gone? Nobody ever thought of 
earing for such things, and itis my firm belief, that a business man, 
in our days, who would show any consideration for the welfare 
of his fellowmen in his transactions, would be certain to become 
a laughingstock. Egoism rules supreme. Everybody thinks of 
his own welfare, and does not care, whether, by doing so, he de- 
stroys the welfare of others. ‘‘What business have I, to care for 
others, if lam comfortable.” In spite of the prevalence of Egoism, 
the common interest of mankind is irrepressibly gaining ground. 
More and more people wnite to cultivate it, more and more asso- 
ciations are formed, the activity of the state and community is 
extending its influence over more and more objects. Who would 
have thougt in former times of all the different associations, which 
are formed to day to advance any number of common interests of 
every description? Who had an idea in former years, that whole 
countries would be cut in all directions by railroads, that tele- 
graphs would communicate news to the remotest parts of the 
world in an instant; who could predict the admirable develop- 
ment of our system of mails? Who thought of waterworks or of 
gas? Who had an idea of the modern arragement of the fire de- 
partment? The root of all these is Communism. 'They represent 
the victory of common interests over hideous Egoism. 


To turn institutions of common interest to the use of all, is 
the tendency of the age, and however people may curse at com- 
munism, they are bent to obey its mandates. Everywhere common 
interests press their claims and communism, proudly elvating its 
head, marches on triumphantly with all conditions of human life 
in its attendance. ight 


He who declares himself an ennemy of communism, declares 


9 


himself an ennemy of common interests, an ennemy of humanity 
and mankind! Whoever wishes to annihilate communism will have 
to destroy the common roads, the schools, the churches, he will 
have to desiroy the public gardens and parks, he will have to ab- 
olish the public baths, the theaters, the waterworks, all the pub- 
lic buildings, f. i. city-halls, courts, all the hospitals, the alms- 
houses, he will have to destroy the railroads, the telegraphs, the 
mail! For all these belong to communism. 


Communism cannot be annihilated, it has its origin and root 
in human nature, like egoism. Everybody, who will open his eyes, 
must see, that, in the present time, we are under full sazl to land 
in its sheltering harbor. Sheltering? Yes, sheltering! Sheltering 
for the great majority of mankind, for whom a better time will 
come, must come, when the common interest, the interest of all 
will be the rule governing all our vital conditions, when a barrier 
will be erected for egoism by the regard for the common or pub- 
lic welfare. [fit happens now a days, that rich speculators charter 
railroads and occupy them by empty freight-trains, to prohibit 
others from transporting grain to places, where it is wanted, if 
people in such places have to pay exorbitant prices, or suffer, if 
the speculator makes use of the common calamity to double his 
wealth, or if railroad monopolists make their own rates for freight, 
injuring by high prices producers as wellas consumers in order to 
gain a large dividend; or if storekeepers prefer destroying their 
goods to selling at lower prices, — these proceedings are consi- 
dered ‘‘all right,” for everybody can do with his own, ashe chooses. 
But everybody must see that such egoism is opposed to the com- 
mon interest; and there will be a time, when people will know, 
how to protect the common interest against such egoism. When 
that time has come, it will be better for all; all will enjoy life, not 
only those, who do so now at the cost of their fellowbeings. 

If you define communism in this way, some of my readers 
will say, we do not object to it, quite in the contrary, we must. 
confess to belong to the Communists ourselves. But this is not, 
what people generally understand by the term ‘‘Communism.” 
We were to consider the communism, which the Communists and 
Socialists want to introduce, the communism» with regard to pro- 
perty. We admit, that they do not intend to divide but do 
they not intend to abolish property? This is, what we oppose, 
otherwise we would not object to it. 

What is property? ‘“To be sure, that, what a person owns, 
possesses!”” Well! But, now, tell me, are you certain, that the 
Socialists are, or ever were, opposed to what Peter or Paul owns? 
Can you show me a sentence or passage from any of all the wri- 
tings or pamphlets of Socialists, which justifies the supposition, 
that they intend to attack the property of any person? 


You cannot, because such an idea never entered the head of 
a Socialist. I should not wonder, if you yourself have not thought 
sometimes, considering the means and ways, by which many a- 
mass their riches, it would be only just and right, to take that 


UNIVERSITY OF 
ILLINOIS LIBRARY 
‘AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


10 


illgotten wealth from the rascally owner, but it is a firm prin- 
ciple of Socialism, never to mingle with personal property, in or- 
der to investigate its origin, or to arrange it in a different way, 
Never and nowhere! And whoever asserts to the contrary, either 
does not know the principles of Socialism or willingly and know- 
ingly asserts an untruth. The Socialists deem an investigation 
into the origin of an acknowledged personal property an un- 
necessary trouble. They do not envy Astor or Stewart or any other 
of your money-kings for their wealth. Although they perceive 
very well the constant flux and the changes with regard to pro- 
perty, although they investigate and are acquainted with the cau- 
ses producing those changes, although they are well aware, that 
fraud and meanness and violence in a great many Instances are 
among those causes; they forbear to investigate, in how much 
these causes, in how much others, have influenced the state of 
property of this or that single person. They consider the personal 
property an accomplished fact, and respect it, so much so, that 
they consider stealing a crime. Everytime, revolution was victori- 
ous in Paris, bills were seen at the streetcorners, threatening 
death to thieves. At Lyons during an insurrection of laborers, in 
1832, a man, who had appropriated an other man’s property, was 
shot by another laborer in command. During the reign of the Com- 
mune of 1871 Paris had no thieves, no prostitutes. A remark~ 
able fact is, that Baron Rothschild tiled suddenly from Paris, as 
soon as those above mentioned bills were posted. 


On the other hand, the right of the owner is not always re- 
spected in our time, but they are not Socialists, who violate the 
sanctity of property i these cases, although it must be confessed 
that in many instances an abrogation of the right of a property- 
holder becomes necessary, Socialists cannot be reproached with 
ever having condemned houses or tracts of land for the purpose 
of opening a street or building a railroad. They certainly are not 
Socialists, who seize and sell houses or lots at auction for unpaid 
taxes. Nor will you find Socialists, who connive at those shame- 
fully unjust appropriations of the property of others, which how- 
ever go on in a lawful form. 


One thing, howéver, calls forth all the energy of the Socialists, 
and they will try with all their might to remedy it. I have stated 
already, they do not eare, whether a person owns hundreds of 
thousands or millions of dollars, whether that person makes use 
of his money one way or the other, whether he spends it wisely or 
foolishly. He may spend his own as he chooses. But—these sums 
of money are not.used simply to be spend, but to bring imterest, to 
increase, if possible, the wealth of the possessor. Does he himself 
want to work,to do something useful? Far from it. Hismoney works 
for him, his money generates money, as the saying is, or in plain 
English: his money is the channel, through which the earnings 
of other, industrious people, flow into his pockets. Socialists call 
all kind of property in this respect ‘‘capital,” this expression com- 
prising all means for production, and because one class of the. 
people possess, by their wealth, these means, the capital—, an- 

1G YTIERSVIG 
YHAS AMAL 


PUT Ae 


v2 
ifs 


1} 


other, and by far tbe larger class, have only their physical or 
mental strength and skill for labor, hence the capital becomes a 
means for enslaving workers, torcing them to give up a part of 
what they have produced to him, who owns the capital. They 
themselves obtain hardly enough to support themselves and their 
families, while the capitalists enjoy life and get richer without 
working at all. This is the point. Dead property deprives living 
work of its fruits. Now since work should, by rights, own, what 
it produces, as its sole and legitimate earning, dead property be- 
eomes the bitter enemy of working life. 

Hence the struggle of labor with capital. 

Returning to the question: Whatis property? the answer 
given above appears unsatisfactory; we must add another ques- 
tion: to whom belongs properly, what the working part of the human 
race produces? 

The answer to this question is of the greatest importance. 
Now it is the capital, which appropriates the greater part of it, 
leaving to the workers, who form by far the greater number, only 
so much of it, that they may keep alive; they are treated like bees, 
that are robbed of the honey they made. This class is excluded 
from enjoying the blessings of civilisation, the greater part of 
their product is taken by the capital. 

What right has the owner of a beehive to rob the bees of the 
fruit of their industry and labor? They are his property, his is 
the might. What right has capital to rob the workingclass of part 
of the fruit of their industry and labor? Are the wages-laborers, 
the mechanics, the farmhands property of the capitalist? Are 
they his slaves? 

As things stand to day — they are! Might is right and by 
the title of such right the slaveowner considers the fruit of the 
work of his slaves his property; by this right, in former times, 
the feudal landowner made his serfs work for his enjoyment and 
benefit. Slavery is injustice, serfdom is injustice, so the right 
which capital claims to the work of the worker is injustice. I 
would not like to be misunderstood here. As far as anything is 
the personal property of a person, he may enjoy it, as he chooses; 
nobody has a right to interfere. Butas soon as he tries to use 
this property to enslave other people, he steps over his domain 
and must be checked. For, I think, it is acknowledged among ei- 
vilized people, that nobody has a right of ownership over his fel- 
Iowmen. Slavery has been abolished, serfdom has been abolished, 
so the power, capital exercises now, will be abolished; its place 
will be oecupied by the natural and sacred Hee of the worker te 
the proceeds of his work. 


But — is not the capital as necessary as the labor? Can la- 
bor produce anything without capital? There must be raw ma- 
terial, there must be tools, there must be machines, there must 
be workshops, warehouses and so forth; there must be soil to be 
tilled etc. What can mere labor do without all these? True! Labor 
cannot exist without capital. But this is not the question. Is it 


12 


necessary that capital, the real foundation of successful labor, 
and which has been produced by labor, be owned by a minority? 
Has this minority a right to continue to take the best part of what 
labor produces? 


The Socialists take the side of the labor. They maintain, that 
it is everybody’s duty to work, unless he be sick or crippled. 
They maintain that, whoever is able to work and is not willing 
to do it, has no right to enjoy the fruits of the industry and la- 
bor of others. 

If capitalists attempt to justify their way of making profit, by 
saying, that they have to run risks sometimes, that a part of their 
property might occasionally be lost, we answer, that labor has 
nothing to do with that. The real cause of it is the compeiition 
among the employers, the custom to produce at random, without 
investigating, whether that, what may be produced, is really want- 
ed. For the class of capitalists there is no risk, because its wealth 
increases every day. But there is a great risk for the working- 
class. When business is slow, when the wages go down, when 
many workers are out of employment, — when in consequence of 
this mechanics, grocers and-even farmers suffer, the condition of 
the working part of the people is pitiable and many suffer. The 
newspapers tell about that. Have they not had starthng accounts 
of people starving to death in our great cities? Look at the local 
columus of the daily papers and it is exceptional, if there is no 
account of some family or other being poverty-stricken, of people 
driven to despair, driven to commit suicide by want. And all this 
in cities that have stores and warehouses crowded with goods! Is 
this no risk? 

But how could this state of things be changed? 

This, certainly, cannot be done of a sudden. ‘There is a na- 
tural process of development in this, as in all changes, that his- 
tory has recorded so far. According to the reasoning’ of the So- 
cialists, this development will be as follows: 

Some time ago the middleclass formed the firm and solid 
foundation cf society and state. Machinery was invented and a 
change occurred. Manufacturing, and even farming to a certain 
extent, were conducted on a large scale; the middle-class-people 
_were pressed down into a class of wages-laborers, and were em- 
ployed in large numbers by the manufacturers or employers. 
More and more this middle-class cease to be property-holders; 1 
is getting more and more difficult for the mechanics and small 
farmers to hold their ground; thus the middle-class is constantly 
decreasing, the class of wages-laborers increasing, untill there will 
be only two classes of people — rich and poor. In this progress 
the number of rich people is diminishing, wealth becoming con- 
centrated in the hands of comparatively few persons, who are 
getting enormously rich. 


But this progress must have and will have its limit. There 
will be a time, when the large mass of the working-people will 
feel the consequences of such a difference, will find it unbearable, 


13. 


will abolish it. That will be the time, when communism will enter 
into its rights. Labor will then be organized according to a cer- 
tain reasonable plan, and since, for that purpose, the use of the 
existing capital, comprising soil, houses, manufacturies, machines 
etc. will be necessary, those comparatively few possessors of all 
the wealth of the nations will have to be expropriated. Perhaps 
they then will consent themselves to such a measure and give up 
everything necessary for production of their own accord, honored 
and praised for their patriotism and humanity, and remunerated 
deservedly; perhaps they will use their ample means to resist the 
common demand, and will perish, overwhelmed by the newly 
formed organization of the state. As I hinted before, in the new 
order of things all branches of labor will be organized, similar to 
the arrangements we see to day in large factories, large estates, 
or institutions of the government. Unnecessary work will be a- 
voided and the reward for work done will be greater. It will be 
everybody’s duty to work, hence everybody will have ample leisure 
for recreation and mental development. All will strive to ameli- 
orate the conditions of the community they belong to; for, by 
doing so, everybody will improve his own private situation. 

The basis of this state of things will be cemmunism of such 
property, which is necessary for production and transportation, 
such as factories, machines, railroads ete., or which has been cre- 
ated for instruction and amusement, such as schools, colleges, 
museums, parks etc. Personal property will be, what is necessary 
or useful for private life. These are the outlines of a picture of fu- 
ture times. Nobody is able to state, whether the development will 
go on exactly in the way we designated; but that does not matter, 
if only the underlying idea of Communism is right. When the 
English engineer Stephenson, more than fifty years ago, built the 
first railroad, he certainly did not plan all the locomotives, rails, 
signals, stations etc. the way we find to them to day, but his idea 
was right, and it conquered the world. Thus the idea of socialism 
will conquer the world, for this idea is nothing but the real, well 
understood interest of mankind. Jtis injustice, that alarge majority, 
io day, must work hard and suffer want, in order to procure an 
affluence of enjoyment for a minority of people, who do not work. 
And who would deny, that, if it is everybody’s duty to work, if 
the production of unnecessary, nay even injurious articles is 
abolished, if production is organized in’ conformity with the real 
wants and pleasures of mankind: who would deny, that the stand- 
ard of life of the whole human race might be raised infinetely 
aboveits present grade, that the great mass of human beings might 
enter the sphere of a life worthy of a human being, from which 
they have been excluded so far. 


Let me point out to you an example of organized labor in one 
branch, to show the benefit of such an arrangement. How would 
it be possible to send a letter to any place of the United States 
for 3 cents, a postal-card for 1 cent; a letter to Europe for 5 cents, 
postal-cards for 2 cents, if the postmasters in the different parts 
of the world were private, like the merchants, manufacturers of 


14 
to day, if we had not the communistic arrangement of the mail? 
Formerly the mail was also a private business in nearly all the 
countries of Europe, like our express-companies and railrcads, 
and the owners of this institution derived a princely income from 
it, although its use was very imited. And well arranged, as our 


postal department may be ealled — it might be better yet, and 
will be more convenient in time. 


Similar benefits would arise from all branches of human act- 
ivity. Look at our railroads — might they not be the property 
of the community at large, as well as the mail, instead of being 
a monopoly in the hands of private persons, whose sole ob}: et is 
to enrich themselves at the cost of their fellow-citizens? A good 
many persons cherish this idea, especially the farmers of this 
country, as is shown by the formation of Granger lodges, and it 
must and will be realized. In this manner one branch after the 
other will be organized according to the ideas of communism, 
perhaps by classes of people, who are far from confessing to the 
principles of Socialism, of Communism, by classes who are inim- 
ica] to it — because they do not understand it, and are narrow- 
minded enough to shut their ears and their eyes to everything, 
that does not tend to their private interest. But never mind! 

Do you not think that the express-companies are next to the 
railroads? 'To day they use their influence against the public, 
pushing through Congress laws for increasing the postage, in or- 
der to fill their pockets. So did the mail in formér tines. 

This is not yet enough. AH means for transportation, suchas 
ships ete., must come into the hands of the community at large; 
so must all means for production. This demand of Socialism has 
been the cause for accusing them of hostility to property, even to 
the property of those, who own but a little. But who is it actually, 
who drives the owner of small means from his house, from his 
soil? Is it the Socialist? It is the large capitalist, the large land- 
owner! As the magnet attracts iron filings, so large capital attracts 
the small sums around it. And the same capitalists, who phe their 
tentaeles in ali directions, in order to seize, what they can get, 
try to persuade the small owners, to beware of Socialism, this 
being ready to tear their property from them. What a shameful 
falsehood! Socialism only teaches the way, in which in a future 
time people will try to reestablish justice and a more equal con- 
dition of life for the whole people, after.the owners of small prop- 
erty will have been robbed ot the little they owned, not by So- 
cialists, ~~ they have no power to de so, nor the desire for doing 
it, — but by the rich capitalists. 

And this way is well-organized labor! 


This certainly includes expropriation of those, who have ex- 
propriated the mass of the people, restitution of all means of pro- 
duction: to the community at large. What benefit would it be to 
the community, to take wagons or carts from the farmers or 
draymen, if you could not take the farmers and draymen along? 
Nonsense! ‘Talk of this kind has only been invented to frighten 


‘ 


16 


people, who are easily frightened, and thus to induce them, to 
defend monopoly and wholesale robbery. Socialism, on the con- 
trary, is the true and only friend of the man of small means, for 
it is the party of the working people. Large property is the natural 
enemy of small property, as long as it has not been able to seize 
and devour it. 

Moreover, Socialism, far from intending to abolish any;prop- 
erty to day or to morrow, only predicts, that there will be a iime, 
not suddenly provoked, but brought on by historical development, 
when the working people will insist upon their right to the pro- 
duct of their own work, against the privilege, which property en- 
joys with regard to the work of others. 

The conception of ‘‘property of capital’ will be transformed 
gradually into the conception of ‘‘property of work.” 

Nowhere, you will perceive, abolition of property is thought 
of by Socialists, and nobody, I trust, will object to the change just 
mentioned. The development of mankind to greater perfection 
never was and never will be arrested by the prevailing laws con- 
cerning property, as for instance, it was not arrested, when hu- 
manity demanded abolition of slavery, by the pretended divine 
right of the slave owners. And if such rights or laws demand that 
humanity stop its progress, such demand is madness. Laws and 
rights concerning property are subjected to constant changes, 
when such changes are in the interest of progress, and whoever 
will compare our notions about property with those of antiquity 
and the middle-ages, will not fail to perceive, that a progress has 
been made for the better. Butalso in our better institutions in- 
justice is ruling, and the change concerning property, just spoken 
of will abolish that injustice and lead mankind to a higher state 
of perfection. At the bottom of our institutions there is a rem- 
nant of,slavery; as soon as capital will cease to govern, wages-la- 
bor and this rest of slavery will be abolished. 


Freedom and equality will then be no longer empty and cheap 
phrases, but will have a meaning; when all men are really free 
-and equal, they will honor and advance one another. The working 
man will then no longer be deprived of the fruit of his work, his 
property, and everybody whoa will work, will be able to spend a 
good deal more for food, clothing, lodging, recreation, pleasure 
and instruction, than he can spend at present. 

That would be all right and well, if the Socialists only did not 
intend to introduce community of women or ‘‘Free love,” as some 
eall it. Would that not be horrible? It would indeed! But do the 
Socialists really intend to introduce such a state of society, in 
whieh every man has a right to every woman? 

Such a state Socialists abhor even more than those, who in- 
yented that incrimination, 


Let me explain, what the Socialists think about the relation. 
ef the sexes. 


The union of the sexes is elevated and sanctified by love, by 


16 


mutual inclination and esteem. But, alas! in a great many cases 
it is not love, that ties the hymenal knot, it is ‘‘money” or some 
other ‘‘consideration,” that makes marriages. How often, there- 
fore, do we find dissatisfaction, unhappiness between husband 
and wife, shortly after the wedding! How often have marriages 
been annulled, because the couples found it unbearable to live with 
each other. How many more would be divorced, if there were not 
insurpassable obstacles, put up by church, state or society, which 
prevent them from doing so. 


Now it is the firm belief of the Socialists, that it would indie- 
ate a higher moral standard in man, if money or any other out- 
side consideration were not his guide in marrying, and if it was 
made easier for unhappily married people to obtain a divorce. For, 


what good can come from a union, which has to be sustained by 
force? bom 


Now, where is the crime involved in such belief? 


If it is beastly to dethrone in marriage the money or perso- 
nal profits, to replace love to her righteous place again — the So- 
cialists may be called beasts. They will stand by their belief, that, 
if two people are united by real love, their union is sacred by 
that love; if there is no love — you may as well dissolve the out- 
ward tie. This persuasion Socialists share with the most en- 
lightened spirits, with the greatest poets and philosophers. Ii 
there is anything criminal or sinful in it, you must no longer ven- 
erate those honored men, you will have to break their statues 
and burn their books. As long as you not do that, socialists will 
stick to their tenet: There is no power to be acknowledged in a 
moral intercourse of the sexes but ‘‘ Love.” 


For this reason the socialists are open and irreconcilable ene- 
mies Of prostitution. This is one of the blackest spots, disgracing 
modern society and there will—there must be a time, when 
neither poverty or rudeness forces a girl to become a prostitute 
nor the gold or high position of those in power will be able to 
break a human flower. 


And now, open your eyes and look about! Who is it that . 
strives to keep upa happy family-life? Who else, but the working- 
class, although it is very difficult in many instances! If fhe parents, 
father and mother, haye been out all day to work, to procure a 
scanty living; if they return towards night weary, exhausted, there 
is not much occasion for the development of home bliss. And now, 
the children! All day they are in the street, left to themselves; 
at night they will get a scolding or a flogging by the angry parents, 
when these become cognizant of this or that naughtiness, com- - 
mited by them. No education! The place of filial and parental love 
is in many cases taken by indifference or hatred! What will, what 
can become of children brought up in this way? It taken care of, 
they might have become useful members of human society; as it 
is, many of them turn criminals. Do you think, the poor work- 
man does not feel that, would not like to help and prevent it, if 
it were in his power? Verily itis high time for remedy! Buta 


17 


majority of the working-class succeed in seeing their efforts 
crowned, they lead a happy family-life. If they do not succeed — 
whose fault is it? Is it the fault of the Socialists? 


If arich man keeps amistress, if his gold enriches the keepers 
of bad houses, is it the fault of the Socialists that his family-life 
is destroyed? 


Immorality elevates its head, to day, nursed by the passions 
and lust of rich idlers. It willbe the task of the workers to extract 
humanity out of that filthy pool. In this case it isalso communism, 
which will bring a remedy. When the working people enjoy the 
protection of their property, when nobody is under the ban of 
want, if he is willing to work, — nothing but mutual inclination 
will unite husband and wife, nobody will be able to buy love, — 
mistresses, and prostitutes will disappear. If, therefore, there is a 
crime in Socialism in this regard, this crime is not directed against 
morality and the family, but against prostitution in all its phases, 
against the community of women, which is not unknown in our 
existing society; it is not exercised openly, but is not unfrequently 
even covered by the black robe. 


This is, what we have to answer to the incriminations of our 
antagonists with regard to property, marriage and family. But be- 
fore we lay down our pen, we must mention a few other points 
closely connected with the foregoing. 


If the Socialists had nothing to offer to the suffering people, 
but the consolation, that Communism will bring ,help at some fu- 
ture time, when the conditions for life, nearly unbearable now, 
will have become quite so, this consolation would be poor. Long 
enough a future state of bliss has been held out to suffering man- 
kind, in which they would be rewarded for all the wants and sutf- 
ferings and pains of this world, and the time has come, when most 
people have lost confidence in such empty promises. They demand 
an amelioration, not words, not promises, but facts. They do not 
want to expect with resignation what may come after death, they 
demand a change of their unfortunate situation, while living on 
earth. 


The Socialists and they only promote, as much as possible, 
the interests of the workers. It would surpass the limits of this 
little pamphlet, to develop here the platform of the Socialistic 
party, but we will have to consider a few prejudices, which 
are in vogue against the activity of the Socialists. 

If workmen embrace the opportunities for getting higher wa- 
ges, it is especially the petty-manufacturer, who thinks his in- 
terests hurt by the demands of the wages-laborers. He totally mis- 
takes the real cause of the difficulty he isin. Overlooking the com- 
petition of large capital, which puts him into his precarious posi- 
tion, and against which his is a hopeless struggle, he turns against 
the wages-laborers, and finds fault with high wages. If he would 
reflect a little, he would soon discover his mistake. If wages are 
high, the prices of manufactures must be high; for if manufae- 
tures are cheap, no manufacturer will pay high wages; or: high 


18 


wages are only a consequence of a higher price of manufactures. 
Furthermore, if a manufacturer on a small scale has to pay high 
wages, his own wages will be high, for he does not, like the large 
manufacturer, depend for his income solely on his employees, 
but he is one of his own helps. But if business is slow, wages will 
go down and small concerns will suffer must. It would, therefore, 
be the real interest of such, who are not able to employ a great 
number of hands, to unite with the wages-laborer. Whoever works 
to make a living, has the same interest, that the wages-laborer 
has, and should assist the latter in his struggle for the right of 
labor against ihe encroachments of capital. 


On the other hand, are the wages-laborers to be blamed, if 
they do, what all other people do, if they sell the only article they 
have for sale, their working power, as dear as they can? Occasion- 
ally they may raise a good price, and there may be instances, in 
which the petty manufacturer suffers. In this case the latter 
makes the observation, that his unmarried hands are able to live 
without cares, but the married ones?— he overlooks them. And 
at all times there is a vast number of wages-laborers in a miserable 
condition. 

The interests of all workers are the same! 'This 1s best shown 
by the fact, that in many strikes the petty manufacturers are in 
favor of the wages-laborers. Low wages are unfavorable to the 
farmer as well as to the mechanic, for, when wages are low, the 
struggle for economical independence is more difficult; large ca- 
pital increases, and at the expense of small property. If all work- 
ing people would only learn to comprehend the solidarity of their 
interest! 

As it is with the increase of wages, so it is with the decrease 
of working- hours. Eight hours work a day is judged sufficient by 
physicians. A person that has worked properly eight hours a day, 
ought to have done his duty and hasa right to request some hours 
for recreation, for instruction, and for his family. Those who are 
the loudest in complaining of the laziness of the workingmen, 
would soon make wry faces, if they were compelled to work only six 
hours a day. This decreasing the working-hours will better the 
condition of the whole working-class. Everybody can easily see 
that. Even in the country it could be done, although there such 
a shortening will meet with the greatest objections, and it will be 
done. What a great benefit will be acchieved by this measure a- 
lone! Whole armies of paupers, tramps ete. will find useful em- 
ployment, they will disappear and with them a great deal of mis- 
chief and crime. 


Now if the wages-laborers of the cities and manufacturing 
places will be ready to lead the van in the struggle for the interest 
of labor, the rest of the whole working-class have no right to put 
themselves in the position of idle, indifferent, or even grudging 
and hostile spectators, On the contrary. It is the duty of the 
whole working-class to participate in this struggle, for this war 
is carried on in the interest of all workers, and the wages-la- 


19 


borers, who have taken up the gauntlet, are the Pioneers for the 
human race. ‘ 


But in order to carry on this war successfully, the workers 
must be organized. Singly and isolated they are powerless; if all 
would unite for the same purpose, they would be a-formidable 
power, which nothing could resist. You may easily break many 
single matches, a whole bundle of them tied together, you would 
try in vain to break. | 3%, | 

With regard to this, the Socialists have the gratification of 
seeing, that their endeavors have not been fruitless. In Germany 
Socialism already forms a respectable power, which commenced 
to puzzle even the great Bismark. They have been able to eleci 
nine representatives into the Parliament of the German Empire, 
who, by their untiring activity, by the speeches they delivered, 
have opened the eyes of hundreds of thousands of people in Ger- 
many. And who would venture to pretend, that those men strove 
for something, that was bad, that they betrayed the interest of 
their constituents? But not only in the parliament, in a great many 
municipal assemblies also we find members belonging to the work- 
ing-class or representing its interests. 

And all this has been accomplished in a few years: It is only 
13 years since the labor party unfurled its banner there. And what 
has been tried and done, during those 13 years to suppress this 
labor-movement! It has been ridiculed, scorned, incriminated. 
Many of its prominent leaders have been put into prison. Many 
were deprived of their offices and situations, of their customers. 
In spite of all this it grew and thrived. 

In North-America this movement has also begun fairly, having 
its origin in the gallant endeavors of tradesunionmen. ‘They will 
transcend the narrow limits they made for themselves; they will 
expand and embrace the whole elass of workers in this country 
as soon as they have overcome some prejudices, the natural out- 
growth of their national conditions and then, perhaps, they will 
lead the van. I omit to speak about other countries. In England, 
France, Italy, Spain— everywhere throughout the civilized world 
Socialism has taken root. Everywhere it has begun the struggle 
against capital, monopoly, and classrule, and its victory is un- 
doubtable. Concerning Socialism there might be said, what was 
said in olden times about Christianity: If it is bad, it will die out 
of its own badness; — if it is good, it will conquer the world, in 
spite of all persecutions! 

And Socialism will conquer the world, its principles will carry 
the whole human race, worthy of that name, to a higher state of 
perfection. 


Reader, you may judge for yourself and decide either in fa- 
vor or against Socialism. If you think the aims and endeavors of 
the Socialists deserve your hatred, try to crush them; if, on the 
contrary, you are convinced, that they are good, that the Social- 
ists endeavor to promote the happiness and welfare of mankind, 
join them! And if you do not like to act publicly, help them se- 


20 


oretly, Try to propagate their principles among your acquaint. | A 


ances, explaining them in your intercourse, destroying the false- 
hoods brought forth against them. Tell them, that Socialism is 
the true and only party of the working people. And if you are a 
capitalist yourself, reflect, how much nobler it is, to help to pro- 
mote the welfare of the many, than to serve only your own inter- 
eat, ugly and hideous Egoism. 


SS SE RT EN 


